Appreciation of Lartigue

[cliveh]

He was doing stuff like this when he was a teenager.

 

[cliveh]

Or this: -

 

[nikos79]

I love Lartigue. Here are some of his quotes:

"I never took a photograph for any reason other than that, at that moment, it gave me joy to do so. I take photographs with love, and that’s why I try to make them look like works of art. But I do it primarily for myself — that’s what matters. If they also happen to be works of art, I have no objection."

"What is incredibly fun about photography is that, although it seems to be an art of surfaces, it captures things I hadn’t even noticed. And it saddens me that I can’t manage to see things in all their depth."

"The golden rule is to be quick. Framing, composition, focus — there’s no time to think. You have to trust your intuition and the sharpness of your reflexes."

"I believe that almost everything has been done before, but there might be things that can be done again — perhaps better and in a different way."

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Oh, there are so many ... Some google results https://www.google.com/search?lr=&s...TNpEf0QtKgLegQIHxAB&biw=1280&bih=586&dpr=1.25

 

[nikos79]

another one

 

[koraks]

I was browsing through his photos last night, inspired by the other thread where he was brought up. I find in particular his color work very appealing.

The website lartigue.org contains many browsable 'albums' in chronological order. I made a comment the other day about 'practicing scales'. Seems like he did a lot of that, given the many instances of variations of the same theme where he seems to have experimented with different compositional approaches.

 

[nikos79]

Thanks for the site. I wanted to ask you about your comment the other day in the other thread I didn't quite understand it (my English are not that good) what did you mean by "practicing scales" ?

 

[koraks]

what did you mean by "practicing scales"

I admit it's a bit of a hermetic comment. For musicians, part of regular practice routines is scales. Practicing scales is often (especially by young musicians) experienced as tedious, boring and repetitive. It's, however, also very effective and ultimately, people tend to embrace it as a kind of 'zen' way of honing their skills or 'getting into it' at the start of a practice session. Scales as such are virtually never part of the actual performance, and therefore aren't the end result one strives for. Yet, they're often considered essential.

It's easy to draw a parallel with photography. The question was raised how often one 'presses the button' as well as the number of 'keepers', or photos worthwhile making in the first place. Personally, I find that being reticent in recording images ends up being false economy and counterproductive. If you're a violinist, you also don't hold back in practicing scales because of the time it takes, the wear on a set of strings etc. It's an essential part of developing craftsmanship. Coming back to Lartigue and the quotes you included, there's this one that relates strongly to all this:

"The golden rule is to be quick. Framing, composition, focus — there’s no time to think. You have to trust your intuition and the sharpness of your reflexes."

I believe there are two ways to be quick. One is to be like Mozart - being fortunate enough to be uniquely and insanely talented, so it comes naturally. No doubt some of the big photographers were blessed in this way - quite possibly (likely) Lartigue himself, too. For the rest of us who have to make do with more human capabilities, all we can do is practice, practice, practice.

 

[nikos79]

I admit it's a bit of a hermetic comment. For musicians, part of regular practice routines is scales. Practicing scales is often (especially by young musicians) experienced as tedious, boring and repetitive. It's, however, also very effective and ultimately, people tend to embrace it as a kind of 'zen' way of honing their skills or 'getting into it' at the start of a practice session. Scales as such are virtually never part of the actual performance, and therefore aren't the end result one strives for. Yet, they're often considered essential.

It's easy to draw a parallel with photography. The question was raised how often one 'presses the button' as well as the number of 'keepers', or photos worthwhile making in the first place. Personally, I find that being reticent in recording images ends up being false economy and counterproductive. If you're a violinist, you also don't hold back in practicing scales because of the time it takes, the wear on a set of strings etc. It's an essential part of developing craftsmanship. Coming back to Lartigue and the quotes you included, there's this one that relates strongly to all this:

I believe there are two ways to be quick. One is to be like Mozart - being fortunate enough to be uniquely and insanely talented, so it comes naturally. No doubt some of the big photographers were blessed in this way - quite possibly (likely) Lartigue himself, too. For the rest of us who have to make do with more human capabilities, all we can do is practice, practice, practice.

Ah yes thanks now I got it. I suspected it since I had my music background in guitar playing and thought you might referring to something similar. I agree we need to practice a lot. And is not only to learn your camera but also to keep your "eye" alert and focused on photography. Some famous poet once said that I spend a few hours every morning writing poetry. In the end of the month I had shitty poems but I learnt a lot about poetry

 

[koraks]

Yes, the scales thing is really about the eye, not so much the camera. It's all assuming that you know how the equipment works. You can practice scales with an easy-to-use phone camera as well.

 

[bernard_L]

A down-to-earth question I already asked in a past thread a few years back. About the image in the OP.
Presumably JHL was panning to follow the racecar. And (still presumably) because he had a vertically running focal plane shutter, the trees, posts, and bystanders appear slanted. But why does the rear wheel of the car appear slanted in the opposite direction?

I think I know the answer, so this is more of a quiz.

 

[Don_ih]

But why does the rear wheel of the car appear slanted in the opposite direction?

The camera, relative to the car, was stationary (but both were sweeping left to right). The focal plane shutter takes time to travel from the bottom of the camera to the top, so exposes the top of the wheel first (image flipped horizontally and upside-down at the film plane) and travels to the bottom of the wheel, displacing it to the left. The sweep of the camera along with the focal plane shutter cause those guys to lean the other way (even though they are upright in real life).

If the camera was travelling beside the car at the same speed, the wheel would not be slanted.

 

[snusmumriken]

A down-to-earth question I already asked in a past thread a few years back. About the image in the OP.
Presumably JHL was panning to follow the racecar. And (still presumably) because he had a vertically running focal plane shutter, the trees, posts, and bystanders appear slanted. But why does the rear wheel of the car appear slanted in the opposite direction?

I think I know the answer, so this is more of a quiz.

I’ll play. My guess is that the shutter ran from top to bottom of the camera, and therefore bottom to top of the image. So later in the exposure, and higher up the image, the crowd figures would be further left relative to the panning camera. The fact that most of the car including the occupants is sharp suggests that the panning speed was pretty much spot-on. But the rear wheel is sloping as if it was accelerating relative to the panning speed. I can only think that it had lost grip momentarily; or that this point on the race course was a left-hand bend, where the right-hand wheels have to travel further than those on the left. Looking forward to seeing the true answer!

 

[warden]

A down-to-earth question I already asked in a past thread a few years back. About the image in the OP.
Presumably JHL was panning to follow the racecar. And (still presumably) because he had a vertically running focal plane shutter, the trees, posts, and bystanders appear slanted. But why does the rear wheel of the car appear slanted in the opposite direction?

I think I know the answer, so this is more of a quiz.

It’s a great question. My guess is that the background elements are slanted to the left because they’re stationary while the camera is panned to the right with a vertical shutter (top to bottom of the image action it appears).

I think the whole car is distorted (not just the wheel) in the opposite direction because unlike the background elements the car is moving, and while the panning speed is accurate (rendering in focus) the shutter isn’t fast enough to freeze the action so the car is stretched.

 

[snusmumriken]

It’s a great question. My guess is that the background elements are slanted to the left because they’re stationary while the camera is panned to the right with a vertical shutter (top to bottom of the image action it appears).

I think the whole car is distorted (not just the wheel) in the opposite direction because unlike the background elements the car is moving, and while the panning speed is accurate (rendering in focus) the shutter isn’t fast enough to freeze the action so the car is stretched.

Although the number 6 does look slanted, it isn’t distorted as much as the rear RH wheel. Also the rear LH wheel seems hardly distorted at all.

 

[Arthurwg]

It’s a great question. My guess is that the background elements are slanted to the left because they’re stationary while the camera is panned to the right with a vertical shutter (top to bottom of the image action it appears).

I think the whole car is distorted (not just the wheel) in the opposite direction because unlike the background elements the car is moving, and while the panning speed is accurate (rendering in focus) the shutter isn’t fast enough to freeze the action so the car is stretched.

I was led to believe that the distortion was caused by the sweep of the Leica shutter (and shutter speed) while panning.

 

[warden]

Although the number 6 does look slanted, it isn’t distorted as much as the rear RH wheel. Also the rear LH wheel seems hardly distorted at all.

It is odd, and absent a broken or bent axle I don’t know how the wheel could be distorted without the rest of the car having the same distortion. ? Beats me.

 

[warden]

I wonder if the car had a lot of positive camber dialed in as they did back in the day? That would have an impact I think.

Pic borrowed from https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=23&t=1537608

 

[Don_ih]

I was led to believe that the distortion was caused by the sweep of the Leica shutter (and shutter speed) while panning.

The photo is from 1912.

I'm assuming a camera like an RBGraflex. Apparently, it was an ICA camera of some sort.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Maybe the rear wheel is distorted/bent because the car is accelerating with massive amounts of torque.
(Credit - somewhere on Redit, and I don't know where they stole it from...)

On a more serious note - The distortion of the back tire coupled with the lack of distortion in the drivers is a mystery to me also.

 

[koraks]

Apparently, it was an ICA camera of some sort.

Funny, I thought those came with leaf shutters generally. Did they make FP shutter models? I guess so!

 

[bernard_L]

Time to open the envelope with the ("the"??) answer.
First the slanting of the bystanders and other stationary (wrt to ground) objects is well known and not part of the quiz.

If the camera was travelling beside the car at the same speed, the wheel would not be slanted.

Although the number 6 does look slanted, it isn’t distorted as much as the rear RH wheel. Also the rear LH wheel seems hardly distorted at all.

These two came close. Here's the explanation that I propose:
JHL was panning (not travelling) to follow the drivers. The rear wheel was traveling at the same linear speed as the drivers, but being closer to the camera, had an apparent angular motion (in the viewfinder, in the focal plane) to the right (orientation referred to the real world) opposite to the background bystanders to whom the panning motion gave an apparent motion to the left. Therefore, the rear wheel suffers a distortion of the same nature as the bystanders, only in the opposite direction. Ditto for the "6" number, only less.

 

[Don_ih]

I screwed up somewhere in the top/bottom bottom/top and left/right thing - somewhere, I think.

 

[Ballinderry-Michael]

There's a nice animation here showing precisely why the wheel is distorted. That should help avoid further speculation.

 

[bernard_L]

There's a nice animation here showing precisely why the wheel is distorted. That should help avoid further speculation.

I will nevertheless further speculate comment.

The answer is rather simple: the effect came about because Jacques Henri used a large camera which he panned to follow the car (but not quite fast enough) and he used a focal plane shutter of which the slit moved from top to bottom.

The linked post speculates that JHL did not pan fast enough. Which might be an explanation, but for:
The drivers do not suffer from motion blur, contrary to bystanders, or the rear right wheel;
Consistent with JHL panning for the drivers.

Rephrasing, the explanation

he panned to follow the car (but not quite fast enough)

is only partly true: JHL panned fast enough for the drivers, but not fast enough for the rear wheel (or the 6 numeral).